Hunt Judgments on Section 9 of MSME Act
Key Points and Insights
- Applicability of MSME Act based on registration and filing of memorandum:
- The MSME Act applies when a supplier has filed a memorandum under Section 8(1) of the MSME Act with the relevant authority, and the entity qualifies as a micro or small enterprise ["Jkg Infratech Private Limited VS Larsen And Toubro Limited - 2024 0 Supreme(Del) 424"], ["Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. VS Micro And Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (South East) Govt. of NCT of Delhi - Delhi"], ["M/S RAFFLES RESIDENCY PVT LTD vs M/S ENKON ENGINEERING - Karnataka"].
Registration date is crucial; benefits under the MSME Act are generally applicable only if the MSME registration predates the contract or supply. Post-supply registration does not confer MSME status retroactively ["Jkg Infratech Private Limited VS Larsen And Toubro Limited - 2024 0 Supreme(Del) 424"], ["Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. VS Micro And Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (South East) Govt. of NCT of Delhi - Delhi"], ["Sark Spice Products Pvt. Ltd. vs P.R.SHESHADRI (AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) - Kerala"], ["Docket Care Systems Lko. Thru. Partner Shri Pankaj Kumar Agarwal VS Union of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, New Delhi - Allahabad"].
Judicial interpretations and case law:
- The Supreme Court and High Courts have followed Silpi Industries (supra), emphasizing that mere filing of a memorandum post-contract does not establish MSME status for the purpose of MSME Act benefits ["Jkg Infratech Private Limited VS Larsen And Toubro Limited - 2024 0 Supreme(Del) 424"], ["Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. VS Micro And Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (South East) Govt. of NCT of Delhi - Delhi"], ["M/S RAFFLES RESIDENCY PVT LTD vs M/S ENKON ENGINEERING - Karnataka"].
Some judgments have clarified that benefits under the MSME Act are only available if the entity was registered before or at the time of supply or contract execution ["Jkg Infratech Private Limited VS Larsen And Toubro Limited - 2024 0 Supreme(Del) 424"], ["Sark Spice Products Pvt. Ltd. vs P.R.SHESHADRI (AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) - Kerala"].
Section 18 and arbitration proceedings:
- Section 18 of the MSME Act allows the MSME Facilitation Council to act as an arbitrator or conciliator. However, the Council's jurisdiction and the applicability of the MSME Act in arbitration depend on the MSME's registration status at the relevant time ["Docket Care Systems Lko. Thru. Partner Shri Pankaj Kumar Agarwal VS Union of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, New Delhi - Allahabad"], ["M/S RAFFLES RESIDENCY PVT LTD vs M/S ENKON ENGINEERING - Karnataka"].
The applicability of the MSME Act in arbitration proceedings is contingent upon the MSME's registration prior to the dispute or supply; subsequent registration does not automatically apply ["Sark Spice Products Pvt. Ltd. vs P.R.SHESHADRI (AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) - Kerala"], ["M/S RAFFLES RESIDENCY PVT LTD vs M/S ENKON ENGINEERING - Karnataka"].
Legal challenges and procedural requirements:
- Courts have held that invoking MSME benefits belatedly, after the supply or contract, is not permissible. For example, claims based on MSME status made after the completion of work or supply are generally rejected ["Jkg Infratech Private Limited VS Larsen And Toubro Limited - 2024 0 Supreme(Del) 424"], ["Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. VS Micro And Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (South East) Govt. of NCT of Delhi - Delhi"], ["Sark Spice Products Pvt. Ltd. vs P.R.SHESHADRI (AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) - Kerala"].
The procedure under Section 19 of the MSME Act requires the petitioner to deposit 75% of the awarded amount before challenging an arbitration award, emphasizing procedural compliance ["Resurgent Power Projects Ltd. VS State of Telangana - Telangana"].
Relation with other statutes:
- The SARFAESI Act and other laws like the Arbitration Act take precedence over MSME provisions if procedural requirements are not followed or if registration is post-facto ["M/S. G.K. GRANITES, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, GEORGE ANTONY vs SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. - Kerala"], ["Resurgent Power Projects Ltd. VS State of Telangana - Telangana"].
- The Supreme Court has clarified that recovery proceedings under SARFAESI cannot be invalidated solely on MSME registration status if the statutory procedure was not adhered to ["M/S. G.K. GRANITES, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, GEORGE ANTONY vs SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. - Kerala"].
Analysis and Conclusion
- The prevailing judicial view is that MSME status must be established at the time of supply or contract for the MSME Act to apply, particularly for benefits under Sections 9 and 18. Post-supply registration does not retroactively confer MSME status or benefits.
- Section 8 filing and registration are essential; merely filing a memorandum after the contract does not qualify the entity for MSME protections or jurisdiction under the MSME Act.
- Courts have consistently emphasized procedural compliance and timely registration as critical for invoking MSME benefits, especially in arbitration and recovery proceedings.
- The MSME Act's provisions are subject to other laws like SARFAESI and the Arbitration Act, which may take precedence if procedural requirements are not met or if registration is subsequent to the dispute.
References:- ["Jkg Infratech Private Limited VS Larsen And Toubro Limited - 2024 0 Supreme(Del) 424"], ["Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. VS Micro And Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (South East) Govt. of NCT of Delhi - Delhi"], ["Sark Spice Products Pvt. Ltd. vs P.R.SHESHADRI (AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) - Kerala"], ["Docket Care Systems Lko. Thru. Partner Shri Pankaj Kumar Agarwal VS Union of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, New Delhi - Allahabad"], ["M/S RAFFLES RESIDENCY PVT LTD vs M/S ENKON ENGINEERING - Karnataka"], ["Resurgent Power Projects Ltd. VS State of Telangana - Telangana"], ["M/S. G.K. GRANITES, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, GEORGE ANTONY vs SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. - Kerala"]